« Liberals smarter than conservatives, Republicans smarter than Democrats | Main | Religious people are less intelligent »

June 17, 2006

Comments

There are other mutations involved, I'm sure. It is too bad we'll never know the truth though. I don't see the current racial PC regime going away soon. Most likely some other country will continue the research.

I certainly don't disagree that "political correctness" hinders research on race and genetics, but the conclusion you infer from the article is stretching it.

I see two big problems from the article, and a couple just thinking about it.

1) "What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence." In other words, they have no idea what the genes do. You can hardly make any conclusions about intelligence.

2) "A team at the University of California, Los Angeles, recently tested whether the gene variants actually affect brain size. They studied DNA from 120 people whose brain volumes they had already measured using magnetic-resonance imaging. They didn't find any difference."

So, in other words, while Luhn found a mutation more common in some groups than others, there's no evidence whatsoever that shows the genes are linked to either intelligence or brain size. Speculation about the rise of written language or civilization is pretty silly -- the mutation would have to be simply huge to enable such a sudden change. I find Jared Diamond's explanations of why civilizations succeeded where they did more plausible.

Additionally, if the mutations were big enough to be the difference between founding cities or not, and between developing written language or not, it seems curious that there are so many extremely intelligent people of sub-Saharan African descent. If the mutation was present in sub-Saharan Africa, why didn't it spread? Could intelligence be detrimental? And if the mutation wasn't present or was so rare, there shouldn't be so many people descended from that population who are so smart.

"there's no evidence whatsoever that shows the genes are linked to either intelligence or brain size"

The article only says that there's no evidence they are linked to brain size. Isn't it more interesting to see if the genes are correlated with scores on mental tests like IQ tests or the SAT?

Reading between the lines of the article, they HAVE done these tests and determined that the genes do indeed correlate with IQ, but the conclusion is too politically incorrect. The conclusion being, not only do blacks score lower on IQ tests, now we know that some genes which are correlated with higher IQ occur with less frequency in the black gene pool. Compelling evidence that the black-white IQ gap is primarily genetic and not caused by racism/poverty/etc.

The article also talked about research into creating a genetic based IQ test but the research was scrapped because it was too politically incorrect.

The message from the article is that people are AFRAID of the political backlash from continuing the research, so they stopped. This means they know where the research is going, why else would they be so afraid?

they prolly have a genetically higher propensity to eat watermelon too.

The article only says that there's no evidence they are linked to brain size.

Wrong. "What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence."

Reading between the lines of the article, they HAVE done these tests and determined that the genes do indeed correlate with IQ, but the conclusion is too politically incorrect.

A groundless assumption. You can't just "read between the lines" when discussing science.

Nobody has any proof about the cause of the IQ disparity (although there's no question that at least some of it is due to sociocultural causes,) but more importantly for this discussion, the IQ disparity is only an *average* IQ disparity. If an entire population was really lacking two enormous mutations, big enough to be responsible for the rise of civilization and written language, than no individuals within that population could be nearly as intelligent as those from the populations with both mutations. This is clearly not the case.

It's one thing to trace a gene promoting lactose digestion -- it needs to simply code for a single enzyme. But to say that something as complex as intelligence comes down to only one or two mutations -- which have not even been shown to correlate with intelligence -- is wildly implausible.

All I see here is some data which shows certain mutations "related" to brain function are much more common in some populations than others. No correlation has been found with intelligence.

Yes, if you can show me a study which shows strong correlation between that specific gene and IQ test scores, that would be pretty convincing. Until then, though, let's not jump to any conclusions.

So the IQ bell curve for black people is shifted slightly to the left...big deal. Thomas Sowell is still more intelligent than Half Sigma.

There's no need to be insulting (well, not really, Thomas Sowell is a really smart guy). But conservatives always assume: genetically low IQ-> social problems intractable -> get rid of welfare.

this isn't necessarily the case. You could just as well argue social problems intractable -> affirmative action forever to avoid social problems. Or even worse--remember Harrison Bergeron?

Be careful what you wish for...

SciFi,

Those who feel obligated to endorse and maintain power structures that engage in widespread theft and wealth redistribution, do so out of deep-seated emotional (nonrational) urgings. A consideration of reality (or the consequences of their good intentions) does not normally enter into their decisions. I don't know if Half is right to focus on genetics, but the desire to violate the sovereignty of one's fellow man is firmly stuck in some subconscious portion of most brains.

dont get it twisted, yo fogot the friad chiken

Contrast:
"Sociologist Troy Duster ... worries that scientists will interpret data in ways that fit their prejudices... 'Science doesn't transcend the social milieu,'"

"Spencer Wells, head of the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project, a five-year, $40 million effort to collect DNA samples from 100,000 indigenous people...Dr. Wells says National Geographic won't study the brain. "I think there is very little evidence of IQ differences between races," he says."

Dr. Duster is truer than he knows.

The PC regime will force the East, rather than the West, to research this most important feature of human nature. Which, as Dr. Lahn demonstrates, the East has no qualms with it. Yes, weren't our good liberals crowing about the US losing its dominance in scientific research?

But the problem with such genetic evidence is that no one gene can account for the variance in intelligence. I am sure that many are responsible. Consequently, many years of constant research are necessary to lend any strength. Combine the time and our Inquisitors, and you have nothing for the foreseeable future. For some reason, genetics research is far more open and public. Psychometrics research, by contrast, is just as controversial but is conducted quietly in obscure journals like Intelligence. This, and the Larry Summers episode, reflects the growing divide between experts and the media, in knowledge. The indirect evidence, for now, is far superior (eg. twin, adoption studies) but somehow easier to deflect and spout nonsensical conclusions instead.

JewishAtheist, American blacks are 20-25% white, so they concievably could have this gene. I deem Dr. Lahn naive to assign so much value to one gene.

"But conservatives always assume"
No, that line of thinking is empty in all mainstream conservative media. An example: The WSJ op-ed page defended the Bell Curve and published a piece upholding its findings, but never applies its findings to current events. You have to wander to the likes of Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Half Sigma, and others, to find it. Libertarians tend to praise the pre-Welfare state model, where mutual aid societies and the like thrived. It's funny how the response to findings varies with the ideology of the observer.

"The book argued that the lower average performance by African-Americans on IQ tests had a genetic component and wasn't solely the result of social factors." The author states here that blacks do, on average, score lower.

Judging by the sample size, the UCLA study is inferior, with less than a fifteenth of the size.

In short, if you're looking to convince people of a genetic cause for the IQ difference, turn to the indirect proof of psychometrics and its studies, not genetics. (Isn't the existence of gravity demonstrated indirectly, through orbit and such?) And thank God for Asia.

Good The New Republic article here, by Steven Pinker, http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060626&s=pinker062606 (Use bugmenot.com for free registration)

Forgot to say, that, the blog headline is misleading; the WSJ does not say that blacks are genetically duller than whites.

I worked in Africa, Europe and the US in the field of astro-physics and visit schools often. And all I have to do is LOOK at the kids to know who will do well and who will flunk my test.
Blacks catagorically perform low and ask the dumbest questions. Just LOOK at these people and Hear how they talk. Look at how they run (ruin) their countries, neigborhoods, business and their lifes.
Why would Africa be the filth pile it is if it wasn't for their consistent stupid and impulsive behavior and line of thought?
I know there is NO doubt that there is a HUGE genetic difference and so it is with Asians and White's. Asian's can focus better but are less practically creative (on average)than the developed and educated Europeans and the Jew scores high too. The Jewish race (which it is) has a high IQ score on average too.
Blacks will NEVER catch up as long they keep breeding with their own low scoring sort. Simple as that.

That suggested brain evolution might have occurred in tandem with important cultural changes. Yet because neither variant is common in sub-Saharan Africa, there was another potential implication: Some groups had been left out.

The research proves that the niggers are subhuman and should be wiped out. They're fucking useless and don't have the intellect for civilization. There ain't no smart niggers.

it seems curious that there are so many extremely intelligent people of sub-Saharan African descent.

They seem smart to stupid liberals like you who are dirty nigger lovers. No nigger is smarter than a retard.

Reading between the lines of the article, they HAVE done these tests and determined that the genes do indeed correlate with IQ, but the conclusion is too politically incorrect. The conclusion being, not only do blacks score lower on IQ tests, now we know that some genes which are correlated with higher IQ occur with less frequency in the black gene pool. Compelling evidence that the black-white IQ gap is primarily genetic and not caused by racism/poverty/etc.

Congratulations, the researchers have finally proven that black people are inferior to whites. Those who view blacks as inferior can be vindicated and have the scientific proof to back up their claims, beliefs, and attitudes while blacks basically now have an excuse as to why they're unable to perform to white standards of performance or accomodate to white social and cultural norms. Thus programs like Affirmative Action and welfare are waste and subsequently, the massive waste of taxpayer, non-profit corporate dollars to better use on helping middle class whites* who would most benefit.

Subsequently, the same arguements that we use for prohibiting low IQ immigrants from entering the country illegally or legally can be applied to blacks since most of them are in the same range as the low IQ immigrants. A pool of unintelligent, unemployable people of a different culture is a burden to our society and it's probably best to export them back to Africa where they won't be a problem on the American taxpayer or white society.

So the IQ bell curve for black people is shifted slightly to the left...big deal. Thomas Sowell is still more intelligent than Half Sigma.

Thomas Sowell is a freak since it's impossible for any black person to be that intelligent, or he lucked out from Affirmative Action on the conservative side. Even on a Macro level, blacks like David Alexander are generally one off freaks whose children are highly likely to regress to pathetic black norms of 800 SAT scores, 70 IQ scores, low life expectancy, high chance of criminality and imprisonment, high illegitimacy, and just general ghetto attitudes.

As for the big deal, evidence like this points out that black people are intellectually less capable than whites and Asians. Thus, black people can not be expected of much, and even if blacks were all perfect angels with few murders and other crimes, they would be incapable of anything resembling rates of white success which in turn is socially detrimental for black people as they eventually discover that they will never be as rich as whites.

Of course, some will proclaim that there will be solutions on the market, but I suspect that the technology to do so will never develop, and the cost of developing and administering such technology are prohibitive to its use. Secondly, the emotional pride of black people would probably prohibit it's use, while most would be too stupid to even know about such developments in technology.** As for those who post here who feel that the concerns of black people are irrelevant, they affect you if you live in this country. When 10% of your population is mostly criminally inclined, educationally inferior, and engaging in anti-social habits, the social costs are spread to everybody in the society even if you live within a white enclave. In effect, it's why I've proposed killing of blacks on several occasions, and why I recommend for the denaturalization of the black populace and its expulsion to African territories.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to peruse the liquor cabinet...

*Lower class whites suffer from the low IQ problem as well, but not as much as they're still socially white.
**I prefer natural sex-based reproduction just out of irrational and emotional reasons.

Daniel Seligman said in his "A Question of Intelligence" book that the 'regression to the mean' is a statistical artifact, not a biological one.

And even the biological explanations dont put it as simply as you did. A person with an IQ of 120, in a population with an average IQ of 100 regresses (thru his kids) to an IQ of 110, not 100.

Looking at it from a culture perspective - Jews are whites... in Nazi Germany they had to be branded and forced to wear insignia to be distinguished from the other whites. So logically, if they are white, and their average IQ is 110, they should regress to 100 (or 105 according to the above bio explanation). But they dont, they stick at 110. To say the reason is we define them as jews and not whites is an absurd reversal of causation.

(Even assuming complete regression to the mean for the following.) Think of two population subgroups in a larger population. Group A with a 'genetic' IQ of 100 and Group B with a 'genetic' IQ of 120. The two groups breed only with their own group. If the S.D is 15, 10% of the children from group A will have an IQ of 120 and 50% from Group B will be the same. The people from Group A will regress over generations. But not the people from Group B if we use IQ 120 as a benchmark.

But looking naively at the overall data, scientists would conclude that a person with an IQ of 120 shows a small to moderate drop in IQ.

See how complicated it can get?

Whether regression to the mean is statistical or biological or whatever is of no matter in practical terms. A high IQ black doctor, living in a high IQ white neighborhood will, on average, have children with significantly lower IQs than his white neighbors.

I know a lot of people here are fond of David as the site token, but he doesn't seem to add much more (to this topic at least) than 'Bimbo Fucker'. White lives are not the only lives that matter, and he knows this, so the genocidal trolling is fairly irritating.

Since we can start with the knowledge he is bullshitting (since he obviously does not want to be murdered so "white people can be happy", we can wonder what is his motivation for these outbursts? It reminds me of some guys I know who tell their girlfriends that they are free to sleep around, paired with some enthusiastic prodding. Of course these guys *do not* want their girlfriends to sleep around - it is a test to unleash the unsatisfied slut they suspect lies just below the resource-sucking "I luv u" surface. I think David is looking for psychological comfort by "smoking out" the suspected inner-Hitler in Sigma's white IQ realist regulars.

True enough.

David IS a troll. He's accused me of genocidal intent as well.

But the question of regression to the mean can take on different shades of meaning and implications depending on what the underlying truth is. That doesnt change ;)

They seem smart to stupid liberals like you who are dirty nigger lovers. No nigger is smarter than a retard.
The inner Hitler?

You're probably right in that DA is trying to see if we're all Klansman racists underneath our veneer of caring about science. But I doubt it. Honestly, there's too many people with Jewish blood in the audience and they want to kill us too. And it's not too hard to see why Jewish people who aren't worried about a repeat of 1930s Germany might like a theory showing they're smarter.

I do think the dude spends way too much time caring about what the people here think of him. I mean, I do empathize in that he's lumped in with a group he has relatively little in common with (and is expected to identify with) and is probably excluded from associating with people he really has more in common with (my experience is that nerds are less racist than average but who knows?) not to mention white women (who he's said he likes) with nerd fetishes and black man fetishes are rarely the same women.

Less Racist? Definitely same experience here.
But not non-racist. Only liberals are non-racist... except when it comes to their housing, schools, other important life events... oh wait nevermind >_<


:P

The inner Hitler?

Yeah, well that guy is obviously a WN troll. I was talking about the regulars and the realist-not-racist evol cons, bell curve libs etc, not the anon turd droppers.

OK, I see what you mean. Yeah, I don't get the sense most of the regulars are Hitlers (or even Mussolinis, given matters of pedigree) but you could see why DA might think that.

Since we can start with the knowledge he is bullshitting (since he obviously does not want to be murdered so "white people can be happy", we can wonder what is his motivation for these outbursts

It's proxy for murder-suicide, but on a larger scale. If I cannot be content in a world where black people are "inferior" to whites, but I'm unable to kill myself, it seems best to drag others with me into the abyss and avoid the indignity of being perpetually inferior.

I think David is looking for psychological comfort by "smoking out" the suspected inner-Hitler in Sigma's white IQ realist regulars.

I'm waiting for one of the HS regulars here to come and be the virulent racists that I think they are.

I do think the dude spends way too much time caring about what the people here think of him.

It's not so much what other people here think, but what people in the wider world think. Unlike everybody here, I have the experience of walking around wondering if my life is in danger if I drive through rural countryside or if I ever have encounter with a racist cop. Statistics and facts like this only feed their racism and give it more credence, and it's why I've always been leery of finding out facts like this. Plus, from a cultural and social viewpoint, it seems to break down all the idealistic values that one can inherit over twenty years. One can say that inherited my grandmother and grandaunt's theory of acting like the rich people (READ: acting and marrying white) would save all black people and allow them to become as prosperous as whites. Once that broke down, it ended up becoming a theory based on Caribbean superiority, which then broke down in light of the pitiful IQ scores amongst Caribbeans in the UK. The low IQ scores of the black population just seems to deflate any hope that for black intelligentsia of having any level of parity with whites on a national or even global scale. It also pokes holes in one's religious beliefs because it makes one question if God would "cheat" one group of people out of the ability to compete in the modern world. In turn, it also destroys self-image because it changes one's position from "a good person" into a "fluke".*

Eventually, the connection forms that the only reason that you'd want to look up and expose such information is to prove that black people are inferior and have an excuse to treat black people poorly. Given how whites treat their lower class and blue collar counterparts, I'd be afraid to see what they'd do to a race of people who's employment opportunities are mostly within the blue collar domain and will compose most of the lower classes of society.

Plus, white women are prettier and less bitchy and annoying (and less ghetto) than black women in most cases.

Less Racist? Definitely same experience here.
But not non-racist. Only liberals are non-racist... except when it comes to their housing, schools, other important life events... oh wait nevermind

That's the problem. Even if a black person was to finish school, one is just a nigger with a job. Recently, I've come to the idea that unless I find a white female to have children with, I would not have children. There's no sense in bringing black children into a world where they are likely to be members of the underclass by virtue of their genes. Where if they're smart, they'll never fit in and be haunted by this type of knowledge. Oddly, this is all predicated on the idea that my half-white children can marry white people.

*My paternal great-grandfather was the Minister of Defense and Interior and my maternal grandfather was the mayor and superintendent of schools of my mother's hometown. One can argue that I'm not a fluke, but it's a broken Caribbean country's government, so it doesn't mean much, right?

Unlike everybody here, I have the experience of walking around wondering if my life is in danger if I drive through rural countryside or if I ever have encounter with a racist cop.
-------------------------------------

Youre not alone there.

Youre not alone there.

If you're not black, are you Hispanic or South(East) Asian?

It sucks that I can't go on a road trip and go roadgeeking without fear of encountering racists who seem to be more virulent in rural areas.

Eventually, the connection forms that the only reason that you'd want to look up and expose such information is to prove that black people are inferior and have an excuse to treat black people poorly
----------------------------------
More closer to stop treating them as superiors.

Though I do hear what youre saying, its not as black and white (no pun intended) as short posts make it out to be.

Blacks have been discriminated against. They probably still are, but get more than enough goodies that raise them above their station from a group perspective.

As for the nihilism that comes from genetic talk - yeah, without a spirit or God of some kind - its a dismal picture.

South-Asian.

Slightly OT.

Ive always considered White Nationalism a practical solution for Whites. Chinese Nationalism makes sense too.

The problem comes up for smart people from historically (or perhaps I should say Genetically?) dumber groups.

Whats a smart South Asian, Hispanic or Black to do? He doesnt share the proclivities or aptitudes of the majority of his race-mates.
Separation by race is rather cruel from his perspective.

Though this is not to say its completely desperate. As Razib, from GNXP said - we can always go back to being the overlords in our old country - not simply being a labourer there (obviously not a verbatim quote)

Further Point:

While racism from White cops is a real but minor issue. Blacks are the most violent group. Though I havent experienced it myself - Jared Taylor relates in his book "Paved with good Intentions" that blacks in the NYC subway attack Asians more as they were of smaller stature and less likely to fight back. This is a high crime. It should not be illegal to shoot these low lives, guns being a great equalizer - but under the current state - that would mean going to a majority black Jail. (As Fred Reed wrote recently Click here for Fred

As Charles Murray says (for eg in "The Pursuit of Happiness"): Individuals tend to be benign and co-operative in society when deprived of the use of force. Guns equalize that imbalance of force.

Also, most attacks on blacks are other blacks - so your view of a great evil being racist (presumably) white cops ignores a greater threat to your own safety and peace of mind.

Though this is not to say its completely desperate. As Razib, from GNXP said - we can always go back to being the overlords in our old country - not simply being a labourer there (obviously not a verbatim quote)

You do realize that for many of who are non-white, our respective nations aren't appealing even if we were rich and "overlords"? In the United States or other "white" nations, I can live in a decent home and have no need to purchase private security due to ineffective policing, bribe people to get basic utilities turned on, and I can buy a luxury car for the price that people buy barebones cars in the third world. I don't have to bribe people for employment opportunities, nor do I have to worry about free speech. I like the nice infrastructure.

What I don't like is being treated as a second class citizen. I have always believed that one of the reasons that "white" countries are "better" is that they promise to treat all of their citizens and immigrants who agree with their values equally.

Also, most attacks on blacks are other blacks - so your view of a great evil being racist (presumably) white cops ignores a greater threat to your own safety and peace of mind.

I don not want to imply that all white cops are racist, but there is segment that are, and I seek to avoid meeting them. It's the same as avoiding black people with violent and criminal tendencies. Given my short stature at 5'7 and 135lbs with nearly no muscle, avoiding interaction with both groups is best. The problem is that the cops have the ability to arrest and curtail one's freedoms through the use of the legal system.

Of course, I lived in a relatively safe black neighbourhood with lower crime rates than your average ghetto, and I currently live in a white neighbourhood with low crime as well. I have the luxury of avoiding the ghetto, but I'm aware of plenty of blacks who cannot.

What I don't like is being treated as a second class citizen. I have always believed that one of the reasons that "white" countries are "better" is that they promise to treat all of their citizens and immigrants who agree with their values equally.
-------------------------------------

Good Point, seriously. But that cuts both ways. In a previous exchange you defended the liberal milieu of our times - preferences for one group (obviously at the expense of another). Whether that special group is white black rich or poor it is equally an injustice, and a poison that destroys the zeitgeist of treating people equally.


You do realize that for many of who are non-white, our respective nations aren't appealing even if we were rich and "overlords"?
-----------------------------
As I said, I was merely pointing out that the situation was not completely desperate, not that it was good. Plus the modern world is shifting much more towards intellectual than physical differences - and if I recall correctly - Your IQ is ~112-117... not mensa, but not something that will leave you behind with the dregs by any reasonable standard under any but the most desperate situations.

Good Point, seriously. But that cuts both ways. In a previous exchange you defended the liberal milieu of our times - preferences for one group (obviously at the expense of another). Whether that special group is white black rich or poor it is equally an injustice, and a poison that destroys the zeitgeist of treating people equally.

Thanks, blame Catholic School idealism...

I like Affirmative Action since it's a tool to combat poor networking opportunities and underprivileged backgrounds for blacks and Hispanics in a mostly white and de facto segregated nation who have some promise of talent and development. The problem is that rich blacks and Hispanics can profit from such programs even though they have no need for it while poor whites languish with very little assistance. Plus in some cases, unqualified person are placed into meaningless positions to create the false image of diversity. Also, it does get in the way of the ideal of opportunity of equality, but then, it leaves the question of do blacks and other minorities have the same chance at equal opportunity? In ideal world, we'd all have access to good schools and good living conditions, but we don't live an ideal world, but it's hard question for someone like myself to answer without feeling some inclination for both sides.

Plus the modern world is shifting much more towards intellectual than physical differences

That's one of the problems of our modern world. What are we going to do with our low and even middle IQ citizenry? I theorize that eventually, we're going to have an ossified lower class that's going to revolt en masse if they see that they're unable to join the middle class or even high prole classes.

and if I recall correctly - Your IQ is ~112-117...

My SAT score was 1180, so supposedly, that's the IQ equivalent, but I suspect the real IQ is a bit lower. I don't feel that smart.

You bring the problem of low to middle IQ citizentry up regularly.
Roughly put (Ill probably have a MUCH more fleshed out answer on my blog sooner or later), you are asking the wrong question.

When we subsidize (aka 'do something for') a group, we tend to get more of them. AKA We make everyone worse off. Before we had a ratio of (say) 3 dullards to every 7 average or smart people.

After subsidizing, the dullards have more kids, or the smarties have less kids because they cannot afford to send their smarty kids to a school with a culture that they want, or because smartiness is underrated in the general culture making them less attractive mates etc (same argument for the averagees as well).

After a few generations of this we have 4 dullards to 6 of the average/smarties. Plus culture goes down the tube. A high crime.

Now, consider that replacement rate fertility is 2.1 kids per woman. It does not have to be the case that dullards be strictly controlled in an orweillian state. We prevent (or at least slow down greatly) the decline of humanity simply by having dullards have an average of (say) 1.9 kids.

So, my direct (and incomplete) answer is - we do nothing for dullards. The free market of their limited earnings will automatically reduce their birthrate if allowed to operate without interference. For REALLY REALLY dull dullards - the kinds who cannot even get minimum wage jobs even with the threat of starvation behind their backs - the state can intervene and provide them with an income - but with a realistic, not an emotional, eye to what it is really doing. This would mean something like - if you are on governmental assistance - you temporarily give up the right to have kids (and it goes without saying - the vote as well). AKA Dickensian welfare- welfare which people will not want, the kind we probably had before the '50s.

All of this is within the purview of a non-interventionalist government - a libertarian government.

There is a parallel between our current discussion and the public conception of evolution. Many people would say evolution among humans is dead - but it has merely changed the way it operates - for better or worse.

In the same vein, 'taking care' of low iq citizens is a fatal conceit of considering ourselves 'greater than nature'. Seeing how we are not greater than nature - if we ignore it, we will suffer.

The book "Ethnic Groups in Conflict" by David Horowitz provides a real world analogy. In Lebanon they had a system where if the president was Muslim, the Prime Minister MUST be Christian. Same deal for their government departments, ministeries etc. For *DECADES* they had total peace. They thought they had fixed the problem for good. This is analogous to thinking we can 'do something for the low IQ without consequences'. But after decades of peace, they broke out into a very bloody civil war. Instead of solving the problem what they had REALLY done was change the *INCENTIVES* of one where people fought and said what they really think to one where the *INCENTIVES* were for complete peace *OR* complete revolution.

As I periodically stress - think in terms of a continuum rather than a dichotomy - its not like low IQ types have become *sub-humans* who arent allowed to have kids - they just cannot have 2.1 kids or more on the average. This is *NOT* a moral statement, but a simple statement of fact. If they did so, there will be bloodshed and declined standard of living in the future. A low IQ woman has not become desparate at being considered outside of *humanity* by not being allowed to have kids etc, which is closer to the picture you have in mind.

An IQ in the 110s is just fine and probably just south of optimal. you don't want to get past 130 or so, as HS has shown.

Whatever HS has said (I havent read it) applies to a society where force is used to lower the return to IQ in myriad ways.

Id bet that number could be shorn up to 'dont want to get past 145' once liberalism prevalent since the '60s is undone. (Indications from the supreme court to the recent destruction of S1639 tell me the end is not far off)

Though with the statement of an IQ of 110 being just fine - agreed. In fact, Id say as low as 100 is ok as well.

After subsidizing, the dullards have more kids, or the smarties have less kids ...

After a few generations of this we have 4 dullards to 6 of the average/smarties.

This is a bizarre misconception with no basis in reality. As far as we can tell, it has always been the case that richer and educated people would have fewer children than uneducated laborers (see Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus's works): nevertheless, average IQ's have been steadily rising since we started measuring them.

As for "culture going down the tube", you're flat wrong again. The European Black Death made "dullards" so much better off that feudal lords had to impose sumptuary laws and wage ceilings for servants and peasants. The resulting social upheaval has been widely recognized as a factor in the Renaissance and the origin of modern capitalism.

Yeah...
The earth is flat as well..

I've also seen this aswell!
According to other studys East Asian, Japan together with White nations have proven to have more intelligence and higher IQ than other non white nations.

They took uneducated whites, japans, blacks, and middleeastern children and grown ups and the Japans and the whites were handsdown the more intelligent one, they had over 5000 people in this project.

The conclusion is that whites and Japans are more intelligent, it's a fact, not even a discussion!

Check out Dr John Henrik Clark. There is a video he has regarding the brains of whites and blacks, and the recent study showed, basically, we all have the same brains! If I can find the video link, I will post it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=H8au_rw8p44

Sorry, the actual video is from a man named Dr.Cheik Anta Diop.

The you tube link is above, however, I will say the video is poor in quality. At any rate, check it out if you like!

If black people are the most violent people on earth then how come all of the most destructive wars ever fought in human history were started and/or fought mainly in Europe by Cacausians? Let's see: the 100-year war between France and Britain wiped out more than 50% of the French population at the time; World War I killed millions; World War II killed at least 20 million Soviets (to say nothing about the millions of Jews, Chinese, North Africans, British, Germans, etc. who were killed); the current war in Iraq has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and nearly 4,000 Americans and the total destruction of that country. And how about all those school shootings that have happened and continue to happen? How many innocents kids have lost their lives in those incidents? How many of those incidents involved black people? The total number of people who lost their lives in this country (USA) as a result of violence committed by non-black people by far exceeds that committed by black people. I can actually go on and on naming many, many instances of violent acts committed by people who are not black at all. But the important point is that violence is not exclusive to any one group or race of people. Are black (especially young black men) in the USA disproportionately inclined to commit violent acts? The easy answer is Yes. But this is not because they are black - meaning if they were to instantly lose their sink color they would act differently. It has to do with both history of slavery and institutionalized discrimination and the culture of unlimited, unchecked personal freedoms in American society. With regard to the under-development of African countries, let the seemingly innocent and hopelessly naive posters on this board be educated about the effects of colonialism, resource exploitation and client-state status on Africa's lack of development. Let them also be educated about the fact that western governments, while preaching and practicing "democracy" in their own countries, routinely have supported undemocratic, dictatorial and brutal regimes elsewhere on the continents of Africa, South America and Asia. These brutal, barbaric regimes have stifled personal freedoms and liberties thus making it nearly impossible for individual Africans and others to develop their intellectual and other capacities necessary for the advancement of their societies.

I was a US Marine. I served alongside blacks. I am white. There are cultural differences and the black culture in america does not reward education. I blame that on democrats and so called black leaders who profit by keeping blacks down. But most of those blacks I served with were prepared to die alongside me in a common cause. They almost uniformly disliked guys like jesse jackson and sharpton as well. In fact they were deemed sell outs for serving in the corps. So I consider them brothers. Warriors. Its culture and not genetics. Semper fi.

a) IQ tests mainly test visual/spacial abilities.
b) The language sections on IQ tests are very limited. They can be considered spacial/visual tests with letter.
c) They do not test memory & recall, esp. long term memory, visual, sonic or procedural.
d) IQ tests do not test real life situations.
e) "" don't test physical or artistic/creative skills.
f) The maths sections in IQ tests are again, more visual/spacial than mathematical.
g) IQ tests vary.

If there is some genetic factor in race intelligence these differences are overshadowed by nurture & culture. I seriously doubt the genetic influence (if any) makes enough difference for concern. The brain develops in fits & starts throughout childhood. It's well known physical activities, esp. ambidextrous skills & reading improve intelligence. More concern should be given to literacy than race. Black Africa is proving that blacks have good multilingual skills - something not encouraged at an earlier enough age in most English speaking countries IMO! I'm not against these unPC studies but deplore the way (mostly white) nationalistic racists abuse the slightest, unconfirmed hints of race difference.

...2 be fair, there may be many white nationalist organised groups in Europe & the US but Middle Eatern, Chinese and even Hispanic (less so) populations have endemic, anti-black racism, probably to a far greater extent.

Just a quick thought from a dumb black: If, as science has concluded, that human life orgininated in Africa - then it must be true that all people decend from Africa (you know, the country with the dumb people gene). All white people must be Africans too. So who cares about this stupid study? This is racist science becaue it doesn't mention that Asians are superior to whites intellecually? What kind of intelligence gene do the Asians have?

"If, as science has concluded, that human life orgininated in Africa..." WRONG. Science has concluded no such thing. On the contrary, science has concluded that life evolved in various places concurrently, Africa being only one of those places. The idea that Africa is the cradle of civilization is a discarded theory that the liberal media continues to foist upon the public.

This is lowly and ignorant as it can get. It clear these people who purport to know who is more intelligent than than the other, are nothing but disemblers, who set out to do nothing else but to validate their prejuidice.

Intelligence is basicly is response to stimulli, and it pertains largely to survival. Vis avis, sustennance and reproduction. Any group of people or creatures who are still in existance this side of life after so many millenium since the begining of time, is just as intelligent. Some people mistake good fortune of their predecessors for intelligence. Man is no more intelligent than the common house fly and it knows it.

Intelligence as rule of thumb defies, quantitative comparison. Same for all creatures. All being equal, it a matter of the individual's industry. That said people like Dr. Lahn and Murray are at the lowest end of the spectrum. Their bane is that their IQ is so low they lack objectivity.

let me site you one instance for litmus test. All being equal, any creature thats observes the same metabolic and cathabolic biological process with semilar and little variation in anotomic details, even totally difference anotomic details, can not be different in intelligence.

Don't let the academic laurels of people like Dr. lahn and Bell fool you. These people are actually less than intellectually accomplished.

Gordin Edheh
PH +47 952 10 389

It clear these people who purport to know who is more intelligent than than the other, are nothing but disemblers, who set out to do nothing else but to validate their prejuidice. . . . That said people like Dr. Lahn and Murray are at the lowest end of the spectrum. Their bane is that their IQ is so low they lack objectivity.

Hahaha. Wow.

Humans didn't come from Africa? Oh yeah, doesn't the Bible suggest the Middle East? Either that or you don't supposed different races descended from different ancestors in different locations?

Why is this such a big deal? Nobody seems to question blacks superior physical ability in Boxing, basketall and Football we all know in general blacks are stronger athletes...we all also know, that in general blacks are not as intelectual and smart. It's just not politicaly correct to say it.
So get over it, there is no point in hurting people feeling

Here are three facts that I would like explained:

1.The immigrant group with highest percentage of college graduates is African males (49%). This is higher than Caucasian Male Americans (for all the superiority and privilege) and will soon even surpass Caucasian females as these sink into complacency.

2. 90% of African 3 year olds speak three languages (Swahili, English and Luyia) in our family. 90% of white people cannot learn a second language.

3. I have an SAT score of 1380 and was one of the poorest students in my graduating class at an African university.

It's probably not as simple as we think. Regardless of tendencies, some groups of whites are dumb as shit and some groups of blacks are smart. Also it is very true that in general intellectual people run the risk of being stupid, shortsided assholes. Another thing to consider, I've found that blacks sometimes are unusually wise in ways that whites aren't. And vice versa! African immigrants apparently fare very well in our schools, but were there any colleges in Africa before the whites got there? The Muslims did some but not on a wide scale. I think we should acknowledge that whites brought on the development of civilization, and stop blaming them so much for ruthlessly colonizing "lesser" races at the time (cause those races may have done the same thing if they had the upper hand). The white race also should get some credit for abolishing slavery, as I believe that had been around since the beginning of time in most empires and societies. Beyond that, perhaps the only way we can go forward making sense, is to be understanding of the fact that people need to have space to express themselves and live in their own unique way. Also take heed, if some humans are so smart then they would have already figured out a way for all to be relatively happy, regardless of criminal tendencies. If the fountain was flowing over even most criminals could be pacified and calm down.

Most of the assholes commenting are not scientist so their comments really have no meaning..They just want to state "feelings"

It's hard to believe that people who consider themselves intelligent, can be so stupid. God will answer your questions soon enough. You are messing with God's kids people.

The comments to this entry are closed.